However, I repeat, that information in the Commentary concerning 1st council and Abhidhamma is very dubious, strongly reminding mahayanic stories of "secret suttas" brought by Nagarjuna from Naga Realm ,)

If we take bare facts

Zom and TheY, I think the two of you might as well argue from opposite cliffs with a canyon in between you for eternity. It seems that you come from two very different cultures, with very different ways of thinking.

Please consider the following quotation:

“The Scientific Revolution has not been a revolution of knowledge. It has been above all a revolution of ignorance. The great discovery that launched the Scientific Revolution was the discovery that humans do not know the answers to their most important questions. Premodern traditions of knowledge such as Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Confucianism asserted that everything that is important to know about the world was already known. The great gods, or the one almighty God, or the wise people of the past possessed all-encompassing wisdom, which they revealed to us in scriptures and oral traditions. Ordinary mortals gained knowledge by delving into these ancient texts and traditions and understanding them properly. It was inconceivable that the Bible, the Qur’an or the Vedas were missing out on a crucial secret of the universe – a secret that might yet be discovered by flesh-and-blood creatures.”
― Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

Zom, you come from a culture where the Scientific Revolution occurred and reshaped virtually everyone's way of thinking. TheY, I'm venturing a guess that you come from a culture that Harari would call "Premodern".

As I see it, (and please correct me if I'm wrong) here is the crux of your impasse:

Zom, you feel you are entitled to bring any and all historical or linguistic or archaeological or what-have-you evidence to the table to make valid arguments (as would any Westerner, pretty much), but from TheY's point of view, those arguments could never add up to anything whatsoever. And why not? Because those arguments were not drawn internally from the Tipitika itself. Only arguments drawn internally from the Tipitika (which is to be interpreted literally and Fundamentally) have any validity. Those internal arguments ARE validity. And arguments external to the Tipitika are Fundamentally wrong.

Zom and TheY, have I represented your views correctly?

Subharo Bhikkhu"There is but one taste on this path, the taste of freedom" -The Buddha

Zom, you feel you are entitled to bring any and all historical or linguistic or archaeological or what-have-you evidence to the table to make valid arguments (as would any Westerner, pretty much), but from TheY's point of view, those arguments could never add up to anything whatsoever. And why not? Because those arguments were not drawn internally from the Tipitika itself. Only arguments drawn internally from the Tipitika (which is to be interpreted literally and Fundamentally) have any validity. Those internal arguments ARE validity. And arguments external to the Tipitika are Fundamentally wrong.

If you want to know my position, I will just cite Buddha in this very Tipitaka itself:

"There are five things, Bharadvaja, that
may turn out in two different ways here and now. What five?
Faith, approval, oral tradition, reasoned cogitation, and reflective
acceptance of a view. These five things may turn out in
two different ways here and now. Now something may be fully
accepted out of faith, yet it may be empty, hollow, and false; but
something else may not be fully accepted out of faith, yet it may
be factual, true, and unmistaken. Again, something may be
fully approved of...may be well cogitated...may be well reflected
upon, yet it may be empty, hollow, and false; but something
else may not be well reflected upon, yet it may be factual, true,
and unmistaken. [Under these conditions] it is not proper for a
wise man who preserves truth to come to the definite conclusion:
'Only this is true, anything else is wrong.'"

Now, as Buddha says, it is foolish to say something is true only because a tradition says so. If one wants to know something, one has to be as much objective as possible, taking into account as many arguments as possible.

Now, as Buddha says, it is foolish to say something is true only because a tradition says so. If one wants to know something, one has to be as much objective as possible, taking into account as many arguments as possible.

Zom, some people are intelligent enough to break out of a cage constructed of circular logic, and others aren't. That's just how it is. So I guess this debate can pretty much NEVER end then.

Subharo Bhikkhu"There is but one taste on this path, the taste of freedom" -The Buddha

'I have preached the truth without making any distinction between exoteric and esoteric doctrine: for in respect of the truths, Ananda, the Tathagata has no such thing as the closed fist of a teacher, who keeps some things back.

DN 16

"Just as the ocean has a single taste — that of salt — in the same way, this Dhamma-Vinaya has a single taste: that of release."
— Ud 5.5

Now, as Buddha says, it is foolish to say something is true only because a tradition says so. If one wants to know something, one has to be as much objective as possible, taking into account as many arguments as possible.

Zom, some people are intelligent enough to break out of a cage constructed of circular logic, and others aren't. That's just how it is. So I guess this debate can pretty much NEVER end then.

I posted this elsewhere, which says dependent origination 'sankhara' is plural in the suttas but singular in the Abidhamma (by Nyanatiloka).

There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

Read the suttas, read the abidhama commentary. Does one seem clear, simple, straightforward and obviously divine? Does one seem constructed, manmade, superfluous? If so, there is your answer. If not, there is your answer.

Let me give an example...

Verse

The wise ones who are intent on meditation, who delight in the peace of renunciation, such mindful Fully Enlightened Buddhas even the gods hold dear.

Commentary

A millionaire of Rājagaha found a large piece of red sandalwood while bathing in the Ganges, and had it made into an almsbowl. Then he had it set up on strings between bamboo towers over his house and challenged any recluses to take it down with their psychic powers. The heretics, who had no powers, pretended that they were too modest to exhibit their powers, and tried various schemes to get it given to them. After a week, the Elders Moggallāna and Piṇḍolabhāradvāja overheard some gamblers talking about the bowl and saying that there were no Arahants in the world. Piṇḍolabhāradvāja urged Moggallāna to take it down. Moggallāna told Piṇḍolabhāradvāja to take it, so the elder used his powers to lift the thirty-mile-wide flat rock to cover the entire city of Rājagaha. The people were terrified, so the elder split the rock with his toe to set it back in its rightful place, then descended onto the roof of the millionaire’s house. The man paid homage, had the bowl fetched, and offered almsfood. ......

..... Other lay disciples, novices, nuns, and monks did likewise, up to the Elder Moggallāna, but the Teacher, after acknowledging their ability, declined all of their offers saying that this basket of flowers was prepared only for him, and that no one else could bear this burden. Then the Teacher stepped onto the jewelled walking path and, pacing up and down, performed the Twin Miracle, emitting streams of fire and water simultaneously from each pore of his body. Then as he paced up and down he taught the Dhamma to the assembly, and seeing no one able to ask suitable questions, he created a double to ask questions to which he replied. Two hundred million in the vast crowd gained Stream-winning on that occasion. Then the Buddha reflected on what previous Buddhas had done after performing the Twin Miracle, and seeing that they had all ascended to Tāvatiṃsa to teach the Abhidhamma, he did the same.

Ok, for me, the verse is clear. Meditation is the path. So, each of us can choose what to believe, what to to study, for their progress. But for me, it is pretty clear. The wise ones are intent on meditation. The suttas, 4 noble truths, noble eightfold path are enough to get you there. The rest can wait.

Read the suttas, read the abidhama commentary. Does one seem clear, simple, straightforward and obviously divine? Does one seem constructed, manmade, superfluous? If so, there is your answer. If not, there is your answer.

Do you really think ānanda/sāriputta/kassapa/anuruddha/upāli were no brain to ask what they/their students can't understand while they were listening and memorizing sutta from Buddha?

If they were having brain while listening Buddha's sutta, where were their questions and answers? On the other hand, where were their books?

Or Buddha's followers can keep/memorize tipitaka through 45 years without any questions/books/comment/aspects? Is it possible?

Can you find the answer? Or you just want to discredit abhidhamma by every way you can without the possible fact?

Commentary wrote Abhidhamma authored by Ven. Sāriputta, after he listened the abhidhamma's summary from the Buddha. Ven. Sāriputta also authored KN. Paṭisambhidāmagga as well.

Commentary wrote 'Only ancient commentary were being at 1st saṅgāyanā'. When Buddhaghosa combined all commentaries, ancient commentary and singhala commentaries, together, he separate them clearly. I still can notice which text is the ancient commentary, and which is not.

Let me give an example...
Verse
The wise ones who are intent on meditation, who delight in the peace of renunciation, such mindful Fully Enlightened Buddhas even the gods hold dear.
Commentary
A millionaire of Rājagaha found ...

Last edited by theY on Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Above message maybe out of date. Latest update will be in massage's link.--------------------------------------------------
Tipitaka memorization is a rule of monks. It isn't just a choice. They must done it.
bahussuto nāma tividho hoti – nissayamuccanako, parisupaṭṭhāpako, bhikkhunovādakoti. http://UnmixedTheravada.blogspot.com/20 ... monks.html

Let me give an example...
Verse
The wise ones who are intent on meditation, who delight in the peace of renunciation, such mindful Fully Enlightened Buddhas even the gods hold dear.
Commentary
A millionaire of Rājagaha found ...

Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in
Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss

retrofuturist wrote:Actually it turns out it wasn't the intro to SN I was thinking of, though it possibly gives a clue on pages 33/34 as to the "seeds" referred to above.

I would type it now, but I'm off to plant trees down Werribee Gorge / Pentland Hills way for my "Community Leave Day" at work.

... and now that I'm back and mildly sunburnt...

Bhikkhu Bodhi, Samyutta Nikaya, pp34-35 wrote:From this way of characterizing the two Nikayas, we might see SN and AN as offering two complementary perspectives on the Dhamma, both inherent in the original teaching. SN opens up to us the profound perspective reached through contemplative insight, where the familiar consensual world of persons and things gives way to the sphere of impersonal conditioned phenomena arising and perishing in accordance with laws of conditionality. This is the perspective on reality that, in the next stage in the evolution of Buddhist thought, will culminate in the Abhidhamma. Indeed, the connection between SN and the Abhidhamma appears to be a close one, and we might even speculate that it was the nonsubstantialist perspective so prominent in SN that directly gave rise to the type of inquiry that crystallized in the Abhidhamma philosophy. The close relationship between the two is especially evident from the second book of the Pali Abhidhamma Pitaka, the Vibhanga, which consists of eighteen treatises each devoted to the analyis of a particular doctrinal topic. Of these eighteen, the first twelve have their counterparts in SN. Since most of these treatises included a "Suttanta Analysis" (suttantabhajaniya) as well as a more technical "Abhidhamma Analysis" (abhidhammabhajinaya), it is conceivable that the Suttanta Analyses of the Vibhanga were the primordial seeds of the Abhidhamma and that it was among the specialists in SN that the idea arose of devising a more technical expository system which eventually came to be called the Abhidhamma.

The Samyutta Nikaya is cool

Metta,
Retro.

Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi obviously has a very similar view with Ven. Yinshun regarding SN and the Vibhanga (see Choong Mun-keat's The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, pp. 19, 252). The major part of SN and its Chinese Agama version SA, bears certain resemblances to the structure of three Abhidharma books: The Pali Vibhanga, the Chinese Dharmaskandha and Sariputra-abhidharma. Ven. Yinshun also considers that SN/SA was the foundation of all four nikayas/agamas in the formation of early Buddhist texts, according to the tradition of Sarvastivada indicated in the Vastu-samgrahani of the Yogacarabhumi-sastra (pp. 9-11).

Last edited by DooDoot on Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.